Youth and young adults, 12.7 percent of the voting members, were not silent during the 2011 Churchwide Assembly in Orlando, Fla.
If you’ve ever been to a Churchwide Assembly, you’ll know what I mean when I say this was a very different Churchwide Assembly than any of the others.
As Mark Hanson, presiding bishop of the ELCA said in our closing plenary Friday morning, this may have been the 12th Churchwide Assembly of the ELCA, but it is the first where we have come together so clear about who we are and what we are about.
We were no longer divided into camps arguing about who was right and who was wrong.
United in mission
Instead, it was clear who we are: We are united in mission — ready to move forward and do the dirty work that Jesus has called us to. We are a church that embraces the grey. We believe in “both/and” — we are saint and sinner. And we are no better than any other.
Like previous assemblies, there was no shortage of hot topics this year. Our days and nights were full of dialogue concerning malaria, genetics, suicide prevention, bullying, immigration reform, reviewing the process for social statements, and conversation about how we, as a church, can live into the future together in a world that is quickly and forever changing.
As the days went on, there were many intense conversations and challenging debates, but time and time again I was amazed at how willing we were to truly listen to one another and work together to build the kingdom of God.
A historic assembly
This was a historic assembly in many ways. Of the 1,025 voting members, 12.7 percent of them were 30 years old or under.
That’s the highest percentage of youth and young-adult voting members in the history of our church! And maybe even more significant than the percentage was the fact that we didn’t sit back and watch the assembly happen.
For every issue that came to the floor, youth and young adults took their place at microphones to make their voices be heard.
As a young adult, it was so wonderful to hear all the different viewpoints from other young people.
All too often we hear the myth that “young adults think this” or “those young people — they are all the same.” The variety of viewpoints expressed by youth and young adults at this year’s assembly began to dispel that myth.
We do not speak as one person but rather as very different people with our own stories to tell.
Our work together was long and hard. And perhaps what impressed me the most was not only our willingness to work with each other, but our willingness to work with people from other denominations and other faiths.
In a world that is full of labels and competitions, it was refreshing to see our many ecumenical partners as they crossed the stage.
I had no idea we had intentional relationships with so many different denominations. As we heard greetings from several of them, I was proud that I am part of a church that is crossing lines and stamping out boundaries.
Ecumenical greetings
For the first time in the history of the ELCA, we were greeted by a member of another faith. As Sayyid Sayeed, who leads the Islamic Society of North America, took the stage, I was covered with chills.
I knew something big was happening. I was in the midst of history being made. With each word that he spoke, I was impressed by his humility and authenticity.
He exuded a true joy that we, as members of the ELCA, were willing to walk alongside members of the Islamic faith, recognizing that there is more that unites us than divides us.
Proud to be a part
Above all else, the 2011 Churchwide Assembly made me proud to be a member of the ELCA.
Proud to be part of a church that is working to raise $15 million to help stamp out malaria by the end of 2015.
Proud to be part of a church that has embraced the connection between faith and science.
Proud to be part of a church that recognizes the world is quickly changing and our organization must change to remain relevant.
Proud to be part of a church that sees the invisible, reaching out in a variety of ways to tell all people that there is a place for them here.
Proud to be part of a church that is encouraging congregations everywhere to reach out to their communities and become true places of mission.
And perhaps most of all, proud to be part of a church that embraces the powerful connection between “both” and “and.”
Crystal Rowe is a lifelong Lutheran and was a voting member at the 2011 Churchwide Assembly of the ELCA. She attended Valparaiso University and the University of Akron School of Law.
I have read a great criticism on this site for many Christian beliefs. I have heard critique of the Catholics, WELS, LCMS, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Through it all was mostly a very respectful dialog from some very knowledgeable folks. Having seen two comments on this post disappear that I didn’t think were offensive; I proceed with great caution. I understand the angst of inharmonious religious beliefs, especially in a post 911 world. And I greatly appreciate interfaith dialog with direct interest in dialog with Islam. Having not been provided the text to Mr. Sayeed’s speech, I comment from a disadvantaged position. Why is it that we can’t critique Islam? There seems to be a fear of offending Muslims that is nonexistent when talking about anyone else. This is what sends chills all over my body.
Davey: I'm glad someone noticed the incredible disappearing comments. I guess what unites Islam and the ELCA is an unrelenting criticism of the Israeli government. Just in case anyone forgot, Muslims do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that is a tremendous difference between the two religions.
Although it is not entirely clearly posted here, as I understand it, the moderation (ie disappearing posts) happens like this:
1) a reader doesn't like a given post and hits 'report' (or maybe someone misses 'reply' and hits 'report' by mistake, who knows?)
2) that removes the post from public view and flags it for an editor to review
3) since the editor's primary job is not reviewing flagged comments, it takes a few days for it to get reviewed; more time is needed during or right around big church events like CWA that demand everyone's time
4) the editor decides whether to remove the post in its entirety or correct the offending part and repost
Chemnitz,
Perhaps you're forgetting all of the Palestinian Christians who are also persecuted by the Israeli government. While I tend to favor Israel over Palestine in most issues, as I understand the argument for working with Palestinians and making that a priority, it comes down to Palestinian Christians having more to fear from the Israeli government than from their fellow Muslim Palestinians. I have no idea what sort of mission goes on in the Holy Land, and that might be worth posting about... how mission work is carried out there and who is receiving God's Word there.
Peter,
Let's not forget that Palestinians (probably both Muslims and Christians) hold positions is the Israeli government. There are three mainstream Arab parties in Israel: Hadash (a joint Arab-Jewish party with a large Arab presence), Balad, and the United Arab List, which is a coalition of several different political organizations including the Islamic Movement in Israel. In addition to these, there is Ta'al. All of these parties primarily represent Arab-Israeli and Palestinian interests, and the Islamic Movement is an Islamist organization with two factions: one which opposes Israel's existence, and another which opposes its existence as a Jewish state. Two Arab parties ran in Israel's first election in 1949, with one, the Democratic List of Nazareth, winning two seats. Until the 1960s all Arab parties in the Knesset were aligned with Mapai, the ruling party.
A minority of Arabs join and vote for Zionist parties; in the 2006 elections 30% of the Arab vote went to such parties, up from 25% in 2003,[107] though down on the 1999 (30.5%) and 1996 elections (33.4%).[108] Left-wing parties (i.e. Labor Party and Meretz-Yachad, and previously One Nation) are the most popular parties amongst Arabs, though some Druze have also voted for right-wing parties such as Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu, as well as the centrist Kadima.[109][110] Palestinian Arabs sat in the state's first parliamentary assembly; currently, 14 of the 120 members of the Israeli Parliament are Arab citizens, most representing Arab political parties, and one of Israel's Supreme Court judges is a Palestinian Arab.[111]
I should probably add here that the only true freedom of worship, freedom of speech, freedom to fully participate in political discourse, freedom from persecution of women who have been raped. and need four males witnesses to bring a case, freedom for women to drive a car, or just walk down the street with a non-relative male friend, freedom for gays to not get stoned to death, freedom for women to marry outside of their faith and expect their man to only take one wife…etc in the middle east is Israel. How is it that a Christian church of the size of the ELCA, that is rightfully proud of it's stance on these issues, stands down and gets chills in their body over an apologist for Islam, that doesn't speak out against these things?
Lets Talk!
davebob,
That's a very narrow interpretation of Islam. How many Muslims in the US do/beleive the things you've listed? Next question is how many "fundamentalist Christians" in the US do/believe the things you've listed?
There are two issues here that are getting mixed up: Christianity and Islam (particularly in the context of having an American Muslim speak at the ELCA CWA) and views on Israel and Palestine.
For the first issue, there are two ways of going about dialogue. One is trying to prove to them that they're wrong. While I am personally a fan of this method, I can also attest that it doesn't work all that well. The second way of going about dialogue is finding common ground and moving forward from there to resolve differences. Instead of focusing on 'they don't believe Jesus is the Son of God', let's talk about what aspects of Jesus (or even God) we both do agree on. From that common ground, we have a framework in which to talk about our differences (is Jesus only prophet or Messiah? what changes does Mohammed make?). This method is harder, because we have to swallow our reflex to tell people they're wrong, but I've heard it works a lot better. Even when it doesn't work, you've built a relationship with someone, so you have something for your trouble.
As to the second, the issue is mainly that Israel does awful things to Palestinians, some of whom are Christians. Supporting those Christians means standing against those Israeli policies that dehumanize and hurt them, like building walls around their source of water, or making them stand in line for hours before they can work, or whatever the latest/your favorite shenanigans the Israeli gov't is up to. Regardless of whether we think Israel is justified in doing what it is, I think it is pretty apparent that Israel makes life pretty difficult for people living in Palestine.
Peter,
I have not yet engaged in any "interpreting Islam"
I agree that there are injustices in Israel, just like everywhere else. The point that you are so casually brushing aside is fact that Israel, unlike any of her neighbors, expresses at least a desire for freedom for all. Israel has shown more restraint under attack than any nation in recorded history. It's the Israelis that guarantee unfettered access the temple mount by all three religions; not the Arabs. Muslims can go wherever they want, but don't try to go to the dome of the rock if you are not Muslim. Resent polling of Palestinian-Israeli citizens has shown that a large majority would rather be governed by the Israeli government over the Hamas government that governs the Gaza strip.
Like I have shown in my earlier comment; many Arabs are voting with the Zionists.
Peter:
While I do not know as much about the Israeli/Palestinian issue as Davebob, I am a student of Spanish History; it was my major in college. The Spaniards spent approximately 700 years fighting Moslems (los moros -- 711 to 1492). Believe me, the idea you have that "Even when it doesn't work, you've built a relationship with someone, so you have something for your trouble" -- well -- what can I say? The central idea -- as shown historically -- of Islam is the conquest and domination of the infidel -- not some cozy "relationship." What you are saying is, in my view, Liberal politics.
davebob,
One problem is that Israel wants to have it two ways with the West Bank: not treat its occupants as citizens yet not let them be involved in governing their land. Israel wants freedom only for people living in Israel with little-no concern for the lives of the people living in Gaza/the West Bank. This also why I'm not sure what you mean by "Palestinian-Israeli citizens". Do you mean Palestinians who are fortunate enough to live in Israel proper and are not the same group of people as those living on the wrong side of the wall? Part of it is certainly economic-- land in the West Bank is lots cheaper than land in Israel, so as long as they can force out those currently living there, building and living becomes much much cheaper.
As to restraint, I'm not as sure about that. Israel does deal with a lot more nonsense than most countries, but they still do their share of causing problems. For example, in the Gaza war, the UN gave the Israeli military the coordinates for their installations so that the military would not bomb them. Guess which installations got intentionally destroyed? Or look to the Facebook photos Israeli soldiers post with their captives-- it's treating people as animals, which is completely contrary to the Law. This isn't even debating about whether bulldozing a house every time a rocket gets fired and guaranteed retaliation is 'restraint'.
Luisa,
The Spanish also committed genocide against the indiginous peoples of the New World and fought fellow Christians in England. Given that no Muslims were involved in either of those conflicts, perhaps the historical record is judging against Spain, not Islam. Historically, the end of the Byzantine Empire is also worth noting. For all that they were finally conquered by Muslims, as a whole, the Byzantines preferred Ottoman rule to the alternative of being ruled by other Christians. Choosing your conqueror over other Christians is pretty telling.
I'm not sure you entirely understand what I mean by building relationships. At the least, I'm speaking of a strategy whereby you try to fulfill the command "Love your enemies" and better as a fulfillment of "Love your neighbors". Trying to prove people wrong all too often is not a fulfillment of either of those statements. Nor am I suggesting that we not talk about Christ crucified. I'm saying that it helps to build the right framework or prepare the soil first.
Peter: Regarding your comment to me, you are totally missing the Spiritual Dimension of the conflict. If you can't see it, there is nothing I can say to explain it to you. I am not "covered with chills" -- just a little queasy.
Also, earlier you referred me to John 3:1-21-- Nicodemus. In this passage Jesus says: "No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man." I refer you to Luke 16:19-31 -- Lazarus and the Rich Man. As we know, the rich man died and went to a bad place (hell or purgatory -- take your pick -- Jesus says "Hades") because of his bad actions in this life. Jesus concludes with: "If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."
Lest you respond with John 3:16, let me remind you that "believing in Jesus" does not mean gritting your teeth, closing your eyes, and saying "I believe! I have Faith!" It means doing the Will of God. Lutherans have always believed this, starting with Katharina von Bora.
Luisa,
To the Spiritual Dimension of the Islam-Christian conflict, I think Luther's On War Against the Turks is helpful to consider. His view was essentially that the Turks, for all that they were not Christian, had been raised up as an instrument of God's wrath against Christendom to punish it for its sins. The solution was not to prove how good we were by beating the Turks, but to be reached by the One who spread His arms out for us on the cross, and to put our trust in this mercy. Bereft the rod of God's wrath, we can see them as our lost siblings, to whom we have a second, right-handed message as well: all are loved and forgiven by God for Jesus' sake.
If we want a spiritual dimension to the Islam-Christian conflict, it's that we deserve the worst that we'll get. This is actually readily borne out in history as well. Who trained Osama bin Laden and funded his organization? The US did. God has turned that full circle back to us in punishment for our sins. We can't win the War on Terror when God is the one sending the terror upon us. The way out isn't right action or even right belief. It is trust in the One whom God sent, that even though we killed Him, God forgives and promises us new life.
The part about Nicodemus I was especially referring to was the question about being born again, and the new creation that God works in us. To the story about Lazarus, the line: "If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." is a very Lutheran diagnosis. They (we) will not listen to the Law; we don't even follow Jesus' teachings, no matter how hard we want to or try to. We all fall away. Our judgment will be as the rich man's if we rely on our ability to follow Jesus. This is especially the rich man's fear-- his brothers will not be saved, even though they have the Law. Abraham ups the ante further, especially useful for those of us today-- not even knowing one is supposed to follow Jesus is enough. The only hope we have is that there is One who crosses that chasm Abraham (the Law) cannot: God Himself, who was crucified, died and was buried, who descended into Hell. On the third day, he rose again. God's Promise is one of forgiveness, of pardon, to all those in Hell. It is the strength of that Promise that unhells Hell.
Trust in that promise is not just verbalizing that you believe and have faith. Faith is trust and hope. It is seizing hold of this Promise and making it yours. That brings forth abundant fruit, some tenfold, some twenty, etc. Doing happens, but that's not the most important part for us, because given trust in the Promise, there really isn't another result to imagine. It is through these works that we prepare the way, yes, but it is always the work that God does in each of us and our hearers that is the important part. When we make the doing the focus of our efforts, we forget the Promise that is the center of it all. Without the Promise, it doesn't matter what works we do.
Peter,
What’s your take on why many in the ELCA are quick to critique fellow Christian denominations on issues like equality for women and gays, and yet get chills of joy when listening to a speaker whose faith is largely adverse to these very concepts? I am still in the dark as to where Mr. Sayeed stands on these issues, or if he addressed the assembly in such a way that he made it clear that he would like to see women, gay or even someone whose last name is Benjamin, be able to become imams.
davey,
It may be that said speaker presented a view of Islam that diverges wildly from some of the assumptions made here. Finding out that Muslims aren't a bunch of terrorists is probably a good start. Finding potential common ground is another source of excitement.
I wonder if there is a copy of the speech somewhere?
Now is a good time for posters to read the LivingLutheran.com community policy, which you can find at: http://www.livinglutheran.com/community-policy.html. Remember that any posts that do not conform to these guidelines will be deleted.
Thank you for your interest in LivingLutheran.com.
For those who get an error with the above link, delete the last period AFTER "html". Corrected link is: http://www.livinglutheran.com/community-policy.html
davebob,
A report with excerpts from Dr. Sayeed's remarks can be found on the ELCA assembly news blog at http://blogs.elca.org/assemblynews/page/2
You can listen to Dr. Sayeed's remarks in full by watching the video of Plenary Session 6, beginning at 2:30:00. http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/Office-of-the-Secretary/ELCA-Governance/Churchwide-Assembly/Watch-the-Assembly.aspx
Marcus Kunz
davebob,
In a global cultural and religious context where so many voices are encouraging suspicion, distrust and hatred, I think it is entirely understandable that an ELCA Lutheran would experience "chills" when addressed by a religious leader who reaches across those divides and speaks a word of peace, love and cooperation. It was a deeply moving and encouraging moment. And I wonder to what end you seem so determined to discredit it -- its authenticity, its significance, its appropriateness. Out of the several things the author mentioned, why have you repeatedly come back to this single observation? What is your purpose in overshadowing a posting of joy with repeated skepticism?
Marcus Kunz
Marcus:
I do not think davebob is impugning either Mr. Sayeed's motives or the good will of his listeners. There is nothing personal here. Any Christian who has meditated on the biblical account of Ishmael and Isaac, and has studied the history of Islam, knows that there are serious issues at the root of the present conflict, and that it is naive to ignore them. Would Ms. Rowe have gotten chills if a Roman Catholic Bishop or a Jewish Rabbi had addressed the Assembly?
Mr. Kunz,
Thank you for the links. The excerpts of the speech seem reasonable and encouraging.
Initially I was curious as to why two perfectly respectful, albeit critical comments of Islam were deleted from this post; and I am also fascinated by the recent phenomenon of how main stream political liberals have been warming up to Islam, while political liberalism largely thinks Christianity and Judaism are religions with hateful precepts. Anyone who looks at the three religions honestly will naturally see that we have very much in common. I would argue that Islam and liberalism have much less in common with each other than the other two. So why the camaraderie? I am not trying to be offensive when I say the ELCA has become a little more liberal in recent years. So I thought it noteworthy to see the ELCA welcome a Muslim speaker, and decided to inquire. As I said in my opening comment; I see all kinds of critique about the more conservative Christian churches on this site without a peep from those who want to “reach out” in interfaith dialog, but to the contrary.
This was the only part of the post that sounded out of place to me. Please don’t confuse my curiosity for repeated skepticism.
Dave
I think Dave hit the nail on the head: "I am not trying to be offensive when I say the ELCA has become a little more liberal in recent years." Here is what stood out to me in Ms. Rowe's post: "We were no longer divided into camps arguing about who was right and who was wrong.... We are a church that embraces the grey. We believe in 'both/and' — we are saint and sinner. And we are no better than any other."
Did all the conservatives just leave the ELCA, or did they remain silent at the Assembly? "Embraces the grey"? Luther's "saint and sinner" -- limited free will. I think there are some very serious theological questions here, lurking just below the surface of Ms. Rowe's observations.
Luisa, there is no Lutheran "tea party". Deal with it!
Michael, neither is there a Lutheran "Democratic Party." Let us deal with issues in unity, as a church.
Michael,
You know, I don’t think I have ever seen you write anything constructive on this site. You have a pattern of having very short comments that insult people that you apparently don’t agree with. I say “apparently” because you tell us we are wrong, but you never say why. You have accused me and others for being tea party people, and you don’t say if that is good or bad. We are left thinking that it is a bad thing only because of the aggressive way that you say it. Why don’t you simply state your case or opinion, so we can learn from you? Please tell us where we have it wrong and how to fix ourselves. What good does it do to just yell “you are wrong and part of the tea party!” without explaining youself?
Luisa, your comments express no interest in unity --- only in the elimination of any viewpoint you oppose.
Davey, are you the same DaveBob who made those disparaging comments about President Obama?
I find it laughable that you are shocked (shocked, I say!) when anyone dare expresses an opposing viewpoint. I think this site benefits when someone with equally strong views voice opposition to yours.
Michael,
Davebob on one computer; davey on another.
Laugh away, but rest assured that I am not shocked.
Michael:
Au contraire, mon ami! My all-time favorite Bible verse is John 17:21!
Crystal - I appreciated your post and regret that there weren't more remarks directly related to it. I am also proud to be part of this denomination. I believe we are struggling to be the body of Christ and faithfully respond where God is calling us. Thank you for your service as a delegate, and for making the effort to share your experience and point of view. It is good to know that there are thoughtful young adults moving into the ranks of leadership! We welcome you and your insight.
Julie Klock
There is a tremendous amount of pride in the original post. In fact, "proud" is mentioned 14 times. Perhaps we should focus more on being humble sinners in need of grace instead of self contented good Christians.
CS Lewis identifies pride "a great sin". Maybe we should too.
"As long as you are proud you cannot know God. A proud man is always looking down on things and people: and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you."
...
"It is a terrible thing that the worst of all the vices can smuggle itself into the very center of our religious life. But you can see why. The other, and less bad, vices come from the devil working on us through our animal nature. But this does not come through our animal nature at all It comes direct from Hell. It is purely spiritual: consequently it is far more subtle and deadly.... For Pride is spiritual cancer: it eats up the very possibility of love, or contentment, or even common sense."
-Mere Christianity
Aloha,
I think it is important to be careful about pride and wary of becoming too proud of something. To be sure, the ELCA will not last forever, and putting our trust in it instead of Jesus' death and resurrection will lead one to ruin.
All that said, though, I think it's just a choice of phrasing. I suspect "I rejoice that..." or "I'm happy that..." or "Thanks be to God that..." could all just as easily stand in for "I'm proud..." in the OP.
Peter,
Huh?
I think belief is what drives us. Please correct!
davebob,
I don't understand your comment in the context of my last comment.
Sorry Peter,
I had a brain laps. I was blending thoughts from two different posts....never mind